Phylogenetic analysis indicates transitions from vegetative to sexual reproduction in theLobaria retigeragroup (Lecanoromycetidae, Ascomycota)

Abstract

Phylogenetic relationships among the hypothetical species pairs Lobaria kurokawae / L. retigera and L. pseudopulmonaria / L. isidiosa were investigated based on TLC techniques and the phylogenetic analysis of the internal transcribed spacers (ITS) nrDNA. Results of TLC demonstrate that L. retigera and L. kurokawae can be chemically distinguished from L. isidiosa and L. pseudopulmonaria by the absence of retigeranic acid. Parsimony analysis of 18 specimens shows two monophyletic clades -a L. retigera lineage and a L. isidiosa lineage-both including their apotheciate counterparts. Unlike the original hypothesis of species pairs, our study reveals transitions from isidiate morphs that have the potential to rarely form apothecia, towards apotheciate morphs that produce no vegetative propagules.

Dismantling the treasured flagship lichen Sticta fuliginosa (Peltigerales) into four species in Western Europe

“…1). Another accession represents a further different species as its ITS diverges significantly from S. fuliginosa as well as from all other species dealt with in this paper: DQ419943 from Canada/British Columbia (Cornejo et al 2009). Galloway D., Lichenologist 26: 259, 1994).…”

Multi‐gene phylogeny of the genus Lobaria: Evidence of species‐pair and allopatric cryptic speciation in East Asia

“…Asian specimens were collected on several excursions to the Himalayas (Nepal), and to the islands of Sakhalin (Russia) and Taiwan. Specimens from the Yunnan Province (China) were collected on earlier excursions (Cornejo et al, 2009; Cornejo and Scheidegger, 2010). Analyzed specimens are listed in Appendix S1 (see Supplemental Data with the online version of this article).…”

“…Analyzed specimens are listed in Appendix S1 (see Supplemental Data with the online version of this article). The species were determined according to classifications presented in earlier publications (Yoshimura, 1969, 1971; Yoshimura and Hawksworth, 1970; Jordan, 1973; González et al, 1994; Cornejo et al, 2009; Cornejo and Scheidegger, 2010).…”

“…Chemical analyses were performed using the standard thin‐layer chromatography techniques of Culberson and Ammann (1979) and White and James (1985), as described in Cornejo et al (2009). The DNA isolation of all specimens, the polymerase chain reactions of the EF‐1a, ITS and RPB2 loci, and the cycle sequencing were performed as described in Cornejo and Scheidegger (2010).…”

“…While in some cases, phylogenetic data and chemical metabolites have been successful in characterizing lichen species (LaGreca, 1999; Kroken and Taylor, 2001b; Tehler and Kallersjo, 2001; Lumbsch et al, 2008; Fehrer et al, 2008; Lücking et al, 2008), in other cases, chemical compounds did not correspond to monophyletic clades (Buschbom and Mueller, 2006; McCune et al, 2011). It is also difficult to apply the concept of species‐pairs—asexual lineages with uncertain relationships to sexual taxa—because in different lichen families species‐pairs have been shown to belong to the same phylogenetic species (Lohtander et al, 1998, 2000; Myllys et al, 1999, 2001; Cubero et al, 2004; Buschbom and Mueller, 2006; Cornejo et al, 2009; Tehler et al, 2009, 2010).…”